Pro-abortion group violence

BMS

Well-known member
Good. So I didn't think it was me but it's nice to see that someone else see the distinction.
Correct. Temujin didnt read and/or understand the point you made.
Lets see if he thinks it was actually a question.

You are lucky, he has put me on ignore.
 

Yakuda

Well-known member
Correct. Temujin didnt read and/or understand the point you made.
Lets see if he thinks it was actually a question.

You are lucky, he has put me on ignore.
I wonder if it's a bit of both. I am sincerely trying to clarify that with Temujin.

We shall see.

I'd love your feedback as we go along.
 

Temujin

Well-known member
I never said it did. I said the nature of something doesn't change because you think it does. I'm not being a wise guy here I am sincerely asking if you see the difference. I would actually like to have a serious discussion with you but I don't think we can if I haven't made myself clear or clear up the confusion that exist on your part.
You are saying that morality has "a nature", an existence independent of the minds contemplating it. Where is this morality found? How do we observe, measure or calibrate it? How do you know that your personal view of it is the "correct" one, while other people are mistaken?

For me, morality is an emergent property of the mind. It cannot be independent, nor can it be objective. People disagree about some moral issues, whilst most agree about others. Just as most people agree that Mozart wrote better music than Jethro Tull, but there is hot dispute between the Beatles and the Rolling Stones.

I cannot see any mechanism for an objective morality, even in one generated by a God. How can the Bible be used to judge the morality of Internet porn, for example? The best you can get from the Bible, or any other religious source, is a broad set of principles. To my mind, we get that from our upbringing and from our genetic inheritance. The notion of a single moral standard applying to all, is just not what we see.

I too would prefer a serious discussion.
 

Yakuda

Well-known member
You are saying that morality has "a nature", an existence independent of the minds contemplating it. Where is this morality found? How do we observe, measure or calibrate it? How do you know that your personal view of it is the "correct" one, while other people are mistaken?
I'd suggest morals have a "nature" that exist apart from my contemplating them. As I have said over and over that generally physically and mentally healthy people do not want to be killed, raped, lied to or about, or stolen from etc etc. I don't ever remember deciding that going forward I really don't want to be killed. Part of the immoral "nature" of killing another human being is taking from that person something you have no right to and take from them without their permission. That's the "nature" of killing. That isn't changed because one side of the equation believes they have a justifiable reason to do it. Hitler still took from Jews what wasn't his and he had no permission from them to take it, no matter what he though of them. If that determines morals then we are screwed. I hope you see a problem with that.
For me, morality is an emergent property of the mind. It cannot be independent, nor can it be objective. People disagree about some moral issues, whilst most agree about others. Just as most people agree that Mozart wrote better music than Jethro Tull, but there is hot dispute between the Beatles and the Rolling Stones.
Thick as a brick is a dang good song in my opinion but music and morals aren't a fair comparison.
I cannot see any mechanism for an objective morality, even in one generated by a God. How can the Bible be used to judge the morality of Internet porn, for example? The best you can get from the Bible, or any other religious source, is a broad set of principles. To my mind, we get that from our upbringing and from our genetic inheritance. The notion of a single moral standard applying to all, is just not what we see.
I think I explained the mechanism.
I too would prefer a serious discussion.
Good. Let's see if we can accomplish that task.
 

Temujin

Well-known member
I'd suggest morals have a "nature" that exist apart from my contemplating them. As I have said over and over that generally physically and mentally healthy people do not want to be killed, raped, lied to or about, or stolen from etc etc. I don't ever remember deciding that going forward I really don't want to be killed. Part of the immoral "nature" of killing another human being is taking from that person something you have no right to and take from them without their permission. That's the "nature" of killing. That isn't changed because one side of the equation believes they have a justifiable reason to do it. Hitler still took from Jews what wasn't his and he had no permission from them to take it, no matter what he though of them. If that determines morals then we are screwed. I hope you see a problem with that.

Thick as a brick is a dang good song in my opinion but music and morals aren't a fair comparison.

I think I explained the mechanism.

Good. Let's see if we can accomplish that task.
I will think about this and reply later. I am cooking supper now, and I don't want wine to colour my answer. It will be tomorrow morning.
 

Yakuda

Well-known member
I will think about this and reply later. I am cooking supper now, and I don't want wine to colour my answer. It will be tomorrow morning.
Very well. What's for supper? We wouldn't want wine colored(properly spelled) answers. Kidding about the spelling. I am actually looking forward to it.
 

Yakuda

Well-known member
I will think about this and reply later. I am cooking supper now, and I don't want wine to colour my answer. It will be tomorrow morning.
I hope you see this before you go but it's a small addition to my previous comments for your future consideration.

This ideas of taking what isnt yours I'd like to add to. Life is the best example. My life was given to me but it wasn't given to me by the govt or society. That life is mine and no one is entitled to it without my consent or permission. That's why the declaration of independence states that govts derive their JUST powers from the consent of the governed.
 
Last edited:

romishpopishorganist

Well-known member
I've never killed an unborn child - have you?
Sir, I have never killed a child, born or unborn, nor do I support the slaughter of children, born or unborn.

However, if I supported the slaughter of born children, while I may have never killed a born child myself, I think anyone could suggest that there is a relationship between my support for the slaughter of born children and the slaughter of born children.

So I would say that while you may not have participated in the slaughter of an unborn child through abortion, at the same time, sir, there is a relationship between your support for the right of a woman to choose to have her unborn child slaughtered and the slaughter of unborn children.

In other words, sir, if people like you didn't support the right of women to choose to have their unborn children slaughtered, it wouldn't legally happen and we could punish people who slaughter unborn children.
 

romishpopishorganist

Well-known member
Can you tell us why you think that morality comes from nature?
Well, actually---

If you were familiar with evolutionary biology, you would know that some evolutionary biologists posit that we evolved a sense of morality. That would make sense--because if we cannot agree on what behaviors are or are not acceptable, societies cannot flourish and pass on their genes.
 

Eightcrackers

Well-known member
Sir, I have never killed a child, born or unborn, nor do I support the slaughter of children, born or unborn.

However, if I supported the slaughter of born children, while I may have never killed a born child myself, I think anyone could suggest that there is a relationship between my support for the slaughter of born children and the slaughter of born children.

So I would say that while you may not have participated in the slaughter of an unborn child through abortion, at the same time, sir, there is a relationship between your support for the right of a woman to choose to have her unborn child slaughtered and the slaughter of unborn children.

In other words, sir, if people like you didn't support the right of women to choose to have their unborn children slaughtered, it wouldn't legally happen and we could punish people who slaughter unborn children.
I would give the definition of slaughter, but we know what you're like with the high-falutin' dictionary, so I won't bother.
 

romishpopishorganist

Well-known member
I would give the definition of slaughter, but we know what you're like with the high-falutin' dictionary, so I won't bother.
Good--because I do not need the lawyers at Eightcrackers, Eightcrakers and Third Name attempting to lawyer their way out of something.

The official definition of "slaughter" is "to kill animals for food."

You know what I mean when I use the term slaughter. Stop with the lawyering already and stay on topic.
 

Eightcrackers

Well-known member
Good--because I do not need the lawyers at Eightcrackers, Eightcrakers and Third Name attempting to lawyer their way out of something.

The official definition of "slaughter" is "to kill animals for food."

You know what I mean when I use the term slaughter. Stop with the lawyering already and stay on topic.
There is a relationship between pro-choice and abortions taking place.

Still does not follow that I approve of - celebrate, even - the abortions that my actions enable.
 

Lastdaysbeliever

Well-known member
Neither ends with dead babies. I know you like to talk about dead babies because the intellectual bankruptcy or your position leaves you with nothing but emotional falsehoods to work with.

There is a massive difference between celebrating the right of a woman to have an abortion if she feels she needs one, and celebrating the abortion itself. Only a total fool or a liar would claim to fail to see that difference.

Way to poison the well and you can call me a fool...so when these women you speak of have an abortion, and by doing so are pro-abortion, and those who support her "choice" to have an abortion only like to be called pro-choice, although they are clearly pro-abortion too, or they wouldn't support abortion, I'm curious about the celebrate thing. Does that come with cake, balloons and champagne or just protests at a Justice of the Supreme Courts home?
 

Authentic Nouveau

Well-known member
Neither ends with dead babies. I know you like to talk about dead babies because the intellectual bankruptcy or your position leaves you with nothing but emotional falsehoods to work with.

There is a massive difference between celebrating the right of a woman to have an abortion if she feels she needs one, and celebrating the abortion itself. Only a total fool or a liar would claim to fail to see that difference.
More pro-deather canards.

Not a single american Board Certified M.D. cares about false medical claims from jailers.

You can't get information from OB nurses. Your sources lie.
 
Top